Where does it say you have the right to travel by any means?

TSORon thinks he's a doctor also.

President Obama and the Attorney General have both stated that they will respect state marijuana laws, and federal enforcement will only occur if both state and federal law are violated.

You're right, it's not in the Constitution, in those words. But the courts have always shown that we have a right to travel, whether they merely recognize it as a "fundamental right" or use the words of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. While it doesn't really apply to air travel, a good example is Shapiro v. Thompson, which you can read about here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment14/33.html

There are some that believe that the right is so fundamental that the Founding Fathers didn't think they needed to bother to put it in (the "right to travel" was explicitly a part of the Articles of Confederation). Though I guess the Founding Fathers could never have even imagined the government they created would create something like the TSA.

lol. he is obviously a wanna be cop. he severd in the af. probably couldnt get hired as a real cop so now likes to throw some(what he perceives to be) power/authority around. very defensive. doubt he is even a tso.....

Name calling, how .... original.

lol. what name?

USAF military police? Was around them for the first 23 years of my life and with only a couple exceptions wasn't really all that impressed with them. Dog handlers fighting non dog handlers. Nightsticks being broken during horseplay then being taped back together before being turned back into the unit supply. Dogs being set loose on air crew members as a joke (that one nearly got a dog killed since the cornered member of the aircrew pulled out his pistol). Abuse of authority for demanding respect from an Airman who thought the SP's beret looked like a blue cow paddy. Setting dog loose to 'teach someone a lesson'.

You may want to review the Supreme Court case of Kent v. Dulles as a start to understanding about the right to travel. The reasoning grew out of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of association. The court further found in the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," a right to travel:
There is more gravitas about the right to travel in the Constitution than the right to privacy.

In addition, given that commercial airlines are "common carriers," the ability of an airline to refuse passage is highly regulated.

One also must remember that the Constitution was not written to enumerate rights but as a limit on government. Thus, even if it's not in the Constitution, it does not mean that a right doesn't exist.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So the "show me where it's in the constitution" doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist. TSA would essentially have to prove that the right does NOT exist or that a limit or exception has been placed on a right thru the courts, such as yelling Fire! in a crowded building is not considered protected speech.

It's becoming clear that TSA thinks it can assert power in some areas because it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. However, when reading the Constitution, it becomes clear that government power is granted and limited by the Constitution, not that the rights of the people are limited and granted by the Constititution. While it's clear that some rights are spelled out, it's also clear in Amendments IX and X that the Founding Fathers knew they couldn't list everything nor would they be able to come up with things that did not exist yet. So the 9th and 10th amendments were intended to cover that.

Not that TSA understands the Constitution in the slightest. Just look at Francine the Googling Lawyer's grasp on the Constitution and her role as a manager of the lawyers prosecuting Moussaoui and that becomes pretty apparent.

those with authoritarian tendencies always gravitate towards a "anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden" mentality instead of the "anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted".

What really seems to be the real question is that how can TSA get away with violating constitutional rights of American citizens? This forum has numerous lawyers who use court cases as examples of how it's wrong but the TSA is still here. There are also nurmerous experts on what the drafters of the constitution intended to imply so how does the TSA do it? Congress is well aware of it,so why hasnt it stopped? Obama doesn't seem to care. Why isn't there a real push to change it? Maybe because my new boss is too focused on me going to the dark side as a veteren and other dumb crap:confused:

So does baby powder. Think about *THAT*.

Wonder how he made it through the X-Ray? I mean, my Vader suit has WAY too much metal on it to clear a WTMD, I'd think, and the electronics in the voice-amp/changer would probably cause the average TSO to flip out. Then we can get into the lightsaber...

Yes, I'm serious. I'm a member of the 501st Legion of Stormtroopers, the biggest Star Wars costuming group in the world and one of two groups Lucasfilm goes to when they need costumed volunteers for public events (the other one is the Rebel Legion, who does the "good-guy" Star Wars costumes, and yes, I'm part of that group, too). Yes, we're huge geeks, and we're proud of it.:D So, Dean, just how good WAS that Vader who came through your line, anyways?

BTW, Jaki, your scenario cracked me up! Good stuff!

Yet.

TSA won't *LET* you study up on the rules - they're SSI, you see. And even those requirements and rules you CAN read about on their site can be overridden by a TSO out of "an abundance of caution", who will then tell you to do whatever the hell he wants you to do if you want to fly today :rolleyes::mad:. We don't even have the ABILITY to "study up and get a license to be a passenger on a commercial airliner" if we WANTED to, where it's required to study and practice to get a license (and hence, to understand the published rules of the road and the proper operation of a motor vehicle) to operate a car on a public road. The situations really aren't parallel at all.